Migrants - What's the answer?

[bmt]

Who owns these magical empty properties or does that not matter in your world?

Of course it matters, it just negates the "country is full" argument. They're also not 'magical'.

[Strokes]

Of course it matters, it just negates the "country is full" argument.

How so? Occupied or not, there are still not enough places in schools for all local children, overcrowded NHS services etc. how do a few empty houses change that?

[johnny the fox]

There are 635000 empty properties in the UK. Plenty to go round.

 

 

We have definitely exacerbated them and I believe some form of guilt and wanting to help is appropriate. Also just because something is wrong already does not mean you don't have an obligation to help the innocent people it effects, especially when we have meddled in those countries. We most certainly owe Eritreans, having stripped their land of much of its wealth and pushing them into a poverty trap and a 30 year long war of independence.

 

Only 166 Syrians came to our country in the past year (I think it's about 260 ytd this year), I don't think it is enough. We do more than some countries do but in my opinion far less than we should, and furthermore however much we give in foreign aid to places like Africa they pay far higher amounts back to the West in interest payments on loans they were forced to take out.

yeah mate...when the British empire was exploiting the world..my great grand dad and grand dad were going down the pit for 5 bob a week...

[bmt]

How so? Occupied or not, there are still not enough places in schools for all local children, overcrowded NHS services etc. how do a few empty houses change that?

 

That's a totally different debate but if people weren't ridiculous enough to vote for a government purposely contracting that sort of infrastructure it would be less of a problem.

 

yeah mate...when the British empire was exploiting the world..my great grand dad and grand dad were going down the pit for 5 bob a week...

 

I don't understand your point? Yes that is a joke, so it's even more of a joke that that's the amount these people still make now. 

[Webbo]

That's a totally different debate but if people weren't ridiculous enough to vote for a government purposely contracting that sort of infrastructure it would be less of a problem.

 

 

I don't understand your point? Yes that is a joke, so it's even more of a joke that that's the amount these people still make now. 

Have we got less schools now than 5 years ago now? Are we spending less on the NHS? 

[bmt]

This is just getting out of hand in my eyes, They are trying to get into the UK but at the end of the day what are they going to be bringing to the table? The majority of the Women will not work, yet they will be expected to be housed, feed and watered from our state.

 

While the majority of the Males getting through will result to crime to fund there lifes.

 

Yes there will be a small minority that will want to work and will offer the country some benefits but this number is extremely small in my eyes.

 

It's like yesterday I was walking up the NCP carpark to get to my car and there was an immigrant getting ready to take a hit of crack!!! So to fund his habbit he will have to commit crime and who knows this could lead to murder in some cases, now if you look at this on a larger scale we will be ****ed sooner rather than later if we continue to let them come in.

 

And lets not get it twisted Leicester is run over with illegals, its a disgrace. if you drive up one road in Leicester there must be 10-15 disabled parking spots on one street. taking the PISS!

 

I 100% refuse to believe this isn't a troll.

[Strokes]

That's a totally different debate but if people weren't ridiculous enough to vote for a government purposely contracting that sort of infrastructure it would be less of a problem.

How is it a different debate? It's on the line of the country is full, a point you were engaging with. And your second point, is a different debate

[Frank to be]

I feel that we, as individuals within a nation that has got to where it is today by purposefully extracting the best things from poor countries and guaranteeing their poverty for the foreseeable future (most Eritreans still earn less than the abject poverty line of $1.25 a day), should feel some sort of responsibility to redistribute that privilege.

Isn't most of Britain's historic wealth attributed to the industrial revolution and our creation of trade routes?

There's no doubt our nation has done some bad things but it has also contributed immensely to the world.

In any case I don't see why we should feel any guilt for things we played no part in. During the industrial revolution it was people like us putting ourselves in danger to make the ruling classes extremely wealthy. In the modern day many British citizens are still living below and around the poverty line. Why should they feel guilty? Why should they be the ones to bare the brunt of the inevitable social problems that arise when you accept thousands of refugees?

The only reason why is compassion for our fellow man, and that's a very good reason, and is why I support opening our doors to the migrants. Guilt is nothing to do with it.

[bmt]

Have we got less schools now than 5 years ago now? Are we spending less on the NHS? 

 

I don't think they're at the levels they should be and obviously didn't have a high benchmark after Brown's government. 

 

How is it a different debate? It's on the line of the country is full, a point you were engaging with. And your second point, is a different debate

 

My point is that the country should bend over backwards to help people who would die otherwise and if it did so, it wouldn't be full. Which is proved by there being vacant properties, whoever owns them. And we could afford to invest more in infrastructure if we used our money, as a nation, more wisely.

[bmt]

Isn't most of Britain's historic wealth attributed to the industrial revolution and our creation of trade routes?

There's no doubt our nation has done some bad things but it has also contributed immensely to the world.

In any case I don't see why we should feel any guilt for things we played no part in. During the industrial revolution it was people like us putting ourselves in danger to make the ruling classes extremely wealthy. In the modern day many British citizens are still living below and around the poverty line. Why should they feel guilty? Why should they be the ones to bare the brunt of the inevitable social problems that arise when you accept thousands of refugees?

The only reason why is compassion for our fellow man, and that's a very good reason, and is why I support opening our doors to the migrants. Guilt is nothing to do with it.

 

I don't think we should be 'guilty' in that sense, just understand our privilege.  My term for it may well be different to yours, but on a national level I think we should feel guilty, even though not on a personal level as you have excellently explained.

[Strokes]

I don't think they're at the levels they should be and obviously didn't have a high benchmark after Brown's government. 

 

 

My point is that the country should bend over backwards to help people who would die otherwise and if it did so, it wouldn't be full. Which is proved by there being vacant properties, whoever owns them. And we could afford to invest more in infrastructure if we used our money, as a nation, more wisely.

Well if you count all the empty bedrooms in social housing you could also make that point but it's still irrelevant. The country is full, we haven't used our money more wisely, it was pissed up the wall by those damn red Tories.

[bmt]

Well if you count all the empty bedrooms in social housing you could also make that point but it's still irrelevant. The country is full, we haven't used our money more wisely, it was pissed up the wall by those damn red Tories.

 

I just don't think it is that irrelevant. This is a serious humanitarian issue, we need to help. There is housing out there, however unusable some of it is (for various reasons) currently. We could make this work; I find it sad that people want to find logistical issues or arguments against rather than asking "right how much can we possibly do as a nation?"

[johnny the fox]

That's a totally different debate but if people weren't ridiculous enough to vote for a government purposely contracting that sort of infrastructure it would be less of a problem.

 

 

I don't understand your point? Yes that is a joke, so it's even more of a joke that that's the amount these people still make now. 

my point is.. I don't feel any collective "guilt" for what our past ruling class did..they were equal opportunity exploiters ..home and away... the fact is the overwhelming burden of these refugees will fall on poor areas mainly up north...the areas who can ill afford to cope..as I said..belgravia and mayfair won't be taking any..

[bmt]

my point is.. I don't feel any collective "guilt" for what our past ruling class did..they were equal opportunity exploiters ..home and away... the fact is the overwhelming burden of these refugees will fall on poor areas mainly up north...the areas who can ill afford to cope..as I said..belgravia and mayfair won't be taking any..

 

That's a challenge to be addressed not a reason to say a resounding no to taking a large amount of refugees.

[johnny the fox]

That's a challenge to be addressed not a reason to say a resounding no to taking a large amount of refugees.

you might think different if a huge influx to your area effects your kids life chances.., councils are facing savage cuts..we can't even afford to have street lights on after midnight around here.

[Strokes]

I just don't think it is that irrelevant. This is a serious humanitarian issue, we need to help. There is housing out there, however unusable some of it is (for various reasons) currently. We could make this work; I find it sad that people want to find logistical issues or arguments against rather than asking "right how much can we possibly do as a nation?"

Im not saying we can't do anything but your logic is seriously flawed, you are glossing over things to suit your own agenda here. You don't have yo prove what a lovely person you are by talking crap. It's not a competition of who cares the most. If we don't put the infrastructure in for new arrivals everyone suffers and that causes serious complications, such as integration.

[bmt]

Im not saying we can't do anything but your logic is seriously flawed, you are glossing over things to suit your own agenda here. You don't have yo prove what a lovely person you are by talking crap. It's not a competition of who cares the most. If we don't put the infrastructure in for new arrivals everyone suffers and that causes serious complications, such as integration.

 

I don't think this anything to do with being a lovely person and I am absolutely not talking crap. I am trying to offer a different perspective from the naysayers who are saying let's do nothing, or a bare minimum because we don't have the infrastructure, whilst also not trying to improve our infrastructure. I am also not 'glossing over things', it was a basic point about the theory there are no houses here etc. With regards to infrastructure if we took 100000 refugees that would be 2 per each town in the UK. Yes we would need to improve some infrastructure but I believe that should be seen as a secondary problem. Obviously I have a left wing opinion but this isn't anything to do with that agenda; it's a humanitarian issue and the more people delay with 'how is it going to work' and not actually do anything, the more people that die.

 

To be honest I find it quite offensive you would suggest someone backing saving people's lives is some sort of vanity project, you don't even know who I am. Who would I be trying to impress?!

[Legend_in_blue]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

That says it all. The UK has the 3rd highest population density of any country in Europe, behind Netherlands and Belgium. Our Swedish friends stand a lowly 200th across world nations.

Our country and any other in the EU should only accept numbers in proportion to what population density figures show up to a reasonably acceptable level. Also, with Germany close behind us, it's worrying that they are taking on more than most. Our low figures in comparison to other EU states appear sensible to me, we should be down the pecking order based on population density.

[johnny the fox]

I don't think this anything to do with being a lovely person and I am absolutely not talking crap. I am trying to offer a different perspective from the naysayers who are saying let's do nothing, or a bare minimum because we don't have the infrastructure, whilst also not trying to improve our infrastructure. I am also not 'glossing over things', it was a basic point about the theory there are no houses here etc. With regards to infrastructure if we took 100000 refugees that would be 2 per each town in the UK. Yes we would need to improve some infrastructure but I believe that should be seen as a secondary problem. Obviously I have a left wing opinion but this isn't anything to do with that agenda; it's a humanitarian issue and the more people delay with 'how is it going to work' and not actually do anything, the more people that die.

the point is our European "fair share" is more like 240,000  and it could be far more..  the fookin yanks should be doing something to help,,,

[bmt]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

That says it all. The UK has the 3rd highest population density of any country in Europe, behind Germany and Belgium. Our Swedish friends stand a lowly 200th across world nations.

Our country and any other in the EU should only accept numbers in proportion to what population density figures show up to a reasonably acceptable level. Since Germany are top, it's worrying that they are taking on more than most. Our low figures in comparison to other EU states appear sensible to me, we should be down the pecking order based on population density.

 

We are also one of the wealthiest though. Down the pecking order perhaps, but 166 Syrians in the past year (july to july) is a joke.

[bmt]

the point is our European "fair share" is more like 240,000  and it could be far more..  the fookin yanks should be doing something to help,,,

 

It depends how you split it up, that's by population. Anyway, I never said anything about a number, people are just jumping down my throat because I've suggested we should take a considerable number. Yes they should, so should Saudi Arabia... But they won't so it's besides the point. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Strokes]

I don't think this anything to do with being a lovely person and I am absolutely not talking crap. I am trying to offer a different perspective from the naysayers who are saying let's do nothing, or a bare minimum because we don't have the infrastructure, whilst also not trying to improve our infrastructure. I am also not 'glossing over things', it was a basic point about the theory there are no houses here etc. With regards to infrastructure if we took 100000 refugees that would be 2 per each town in the UK. Yes we would need to improve some infrastructure but I believe that should be seen as a secondary problem. Obviously I have a left wing opinion but this isn't anything to do with that agenda; it's a humanitarian issue and the more people delay with 'how is it going to work' and not actually do anything, the more people that die.

 

To be honest I find it quite offensive you would suggest someone backing saving people's lives is some sort of vanity project, you don't even know who I am. Who would I be trying to impress?!

I couldn't care less if you find it offensive, it's how I interpret your posts. You thinking that people showing concerns aren't caring and seemingly look at them with disgust. 100000 refugees would still need the correct infrastructure however you break it down or it will cause big problems.

[bmt]

I couldn't care less if you find it offensive, it's how I interpret your posts. You thinking that people showing concerns aren't caring and seemingly look at them with disgust. 100000 refugees would still need the correct infrastructure however you break it down or it will cause big problems.

 

When did I look at anyone at disgust or say anything about anyone's character? You are the one interpreting peoples posts with your own agenda evidently.

 

So you're saying my point is that we should take loads of people and not care about the infrastructure, no. I am saying we should agree to take a large amount of refugees and then figure out how to do it.

[Strokes]

When did I look at anyone at disgust or say anything about anyone's character? You are the one interpreting peoples posts with your own agenda evidently.

 

So you're saying my point is that we should take loads of people and not care about the infrastructure, no. I am saying we should agree to take a large amount of refugees and then figure out how to do it.

And I'm saying we should figure out how many we can take based, on our current infrastructure.

[johnny the fox]

It depends how you split it up, that's by population. Anyway, I never said anything about a number, people are just jumping down my throat because I've suggested we should take a considerable number. Yes they should, so should Saudi Arabia... But they won't so it's besides the point. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Im not jumping anywhere, but a proper organized plan should be drawn up.... a full europe/world summit...not a policy made up on the hoof..